They must be a slight difference between the 780 ( I'm assuming it's stock) that they're using for this benchmark and the classified edition that I have. Granted I have a 4670k but I'm never dropping below 65fps @ 2560X1600 with no AA. I average 75 most of the time.

They must be a slight difference between the 780 ( I'm assuming it's stock) that they're using for this benchmark and the classified edition that I have. Granted I have a 4670k but I'm never dropping below 65fps @ 2560X1600 with no AA. I average 75 most of the time.

I can tell you that a 780 Classified is overkill for 1920x1080 although it's a tough fight at 5760x1080. You can't max out the AA with a 780, but you can max everything else and push over 60 fps. With AA off and everything else maxed (although I use SBAO instead of HBAO), I don't drop below 60 fps at 1080p. I did find I have had some "less than smooth" gameplay at times... haven't looked into a pattern or frequency yet, but it only impacted about 1/5 of the hours I've played so far.

Very nice info. RAM wise it proves that 4GB would cut the mustard just fine, and even a core i3 would work just fine, the one in the review is the i3-2100 clocked at 3.1 GHz but imagine a Haswell i3 at 3.5 GHz, that would be a nice performance boost. 10% from the IPC improvements alone and another 10% from the higher frequency and you have a nice gamer. (I never understood why the people go always overkill with i7s and 16GB of RAM.) All you need to splash on is the GPU, but even a 7870 would keep you happy at 1920x1080 as long as you don't engage the FSAA mode.

In regards to the CPU benchmarks, they used an ARES II, and from just looking that one graph one can come to the conclusion that the CPU is always the bottleneck. Could the benchmark be incorrect, or perhaps BF4 itself is artificially loading the CPU to get more sales for Intel? If the CPU is not a bottleneck, then why would the FPS increases be so linear, should it just cap out when it maxes out the GPU usage?

In regards to the CPU benchmarks, they used an ARES II, and from just looking that one graph one can come to the conclusion that the CPU is always the bottleneck. Could the benchmark be incorrect, or perhaps BF4 itself is artificially loading the CPU to get more sales for Intel? If the CPU is not a bottleneck, then why would the FPS increases be so linear, should it just cap out when it maxes out the GPU usage?

It looks like they have some sort of way where they can use the CPU to help out the GPU and push more frames, if you push the GPU harder the frames go up and if you push the GPU higher the frames go up.

I run a 4820k @ 4.6 Ghz with an EVGA 780 Classified and 16 GB DDR3.
This is a run of operation locker large conquest and a variety of both indoor and outdoor and a few times of excessive grenade spamming.